In all seriousness, I don't understand the aggressive stance that those in opposition are taking. Are a near-majority of Americans generally that incredibly boorish to not be able to see the benefits?

In a nutshell, yes.

The mandate takes away their ability to freeload on the system and save a couple of bucks. So they are incredibly butthurt over it. One of the main thrusts of their disinformation campaign is to try and make sure most people ignore the fact that they already pay into a healthcare plan and instead say they going to be hit with addition healthcare taxes.

There are plenty of folks who would rather do without medicare, social security and the TSA.

There's nothing stopping such a person doing just that if they so desire.

Yes, but failing to chip in to the first two programs will result in fines, penalties or jail time. Opting out of the latter is a bit easier, but increasingly restricts your ability to exercise your right to travel.

Offer me the chance to stop paying for medicare and social security and I'll jump at the chance - I could do far better investing the funds on my own.

I'm disappointed that the government has decided to require insurance (or impose a tax on those who choose not to get insurance). Yes, there are some who "freeload" in the system, but there are also rational actors who make a reasonable decision to go without health insurance, or to carry only catastrophic coverage. Those options are no longer available (the "bronze" plan is far more coverage, and far more expensive, than the plan I carried while in school). Even now, while I have a full HMO (no more high deductible plan available to me), the actual cost of my healthcare is far less than what I pay. I went to the doctor once last year, for a physical. I've had similarly low healthcare expenditures for the past seven years or so.

And, since this is designed to be a funny images thread, look at the shit one could buy if they didn't have to blow that cash on unnecessary insurance.

Not a very good illustration of the ability of many people to act responsibly. Basically, you are advocating gaming the system. It's just a half step better than my friend who withdrew money from his 401K to pay for his big ass wedding. Why not just advocate buying an SUV and a big ass house too? I hear that worked well.

I saw that same article earlier in the week, and it does summarize the consumer douchiness of our society.

but there are also rational actors who make a reasonable decision to go without health insurance

There is no such thing. Anyone who willingly goes without health insurance (unless they are truly independently wealthy and can absorb catastrophic expense) isn't a rational actor. There is no thing more important than one's health, and nothing more destructive of wealth and assets than an unexpected debilitating illness. There is no reasonable way to prepare for things like that without insurance. A single major medical occurrence can wipe out a life's savings of even the most conservative of spenders.

Not a very good illustration of the ability of many people to act responsibly. Basically, you are advocating gaming the system.

The actual risk of a catastrophic health expense in the US was around 0.55% last time I looked. That's a pretty small likelihood of having financially ruinous healthcare costs, particularly since the poorest citizens already have access to coverage.

It was far easier to sock away money to cover minor needs (which, during this period were truly minor - I never even dipped into my savings) than it was to shell out for a full coverage policy each month.

The actual risk of a catastrophic health expense in the US was around 0.55% last time I looked. That's a pretty small likelihood of having financially ruinous healthcare costs, particularly since the poorest citizens already have access to coverage.

If you read the article, that percentage is AFTER insurance, and recurring on an annual basis. It's evidence in favor of expanding coverage if I ever saw it.

It's not a salvageable thread anyway. It's just an opportunity for us to be dicks and post cutesy images making fun of each other in vapid little ways. There's a reason that image macros are heavily frowned upon in the SB.

The jail picture dotorg posted, however, is a blatant lie. There are 0 provisions to throw people in jail, or punish them in any other way other than decreasing their tax refund if they didn't pay for health insurance, in the plan. 0.

But now I'm boxing up the thread, sorry. That cartoon got me really miffed

The jail picture dotorg posted, however, is a blatant lie. There are 0 provisions to throw people in jail, or punish them in any other way other than decreasing their tax refund if they didn't pay for health insurance, in the plan. 0.

You don't get thrown in jail from anything in the Act, you get thrown in jail for contempt of court after a judge orders you to pay your tax and you fail to do so.

The jail picture dotorg posted, however, is a blatant lie. There are 0 provisions to throw people in jail, or punish them in any other way other than decreasing their tax refund if they didn't pay for health insurance, in the plan. 0.

You don't get thrown in jail from anything in the Act, you get thrown in jail for contempt of court after a judge orders you to pay your tax and you fail to do so.

Actually, that's not true either. The strongest enforcement available is to take it out of your income tax deduction, that the enforcability of that is still in question.